Racism Questions

[Jacob Cliff]

I'll admit, I'm pretty closed-off from many race issues give my circumstances. I'm a white guy living in a place where there is not really any racial tension so I don't get to "see firsthand" the racism which people here often complain about. So please excuse any ignorance of the subject in my questions.

What exactly is racism? It seems that communists take a different definition of it. The dictionary definition is prejudice or discrimination against another race on the basis that their own race is superior, but people here have often talked about how black people, or other minorities, can't be racist against whites. Communists here often distinguish racism from discrimination – and would label a black nationalist (or supremacist; whatever term you like) as discriminatory but not racist. Why is this? Why do we make the distinction between the two – between (racial) discrimination and racism? I'm not in awe at the supposed infallibility of dictionaries (which are often wrong – look up communism in a dictionary), but there really seems to be nothing wrong with the definition of racism as racial prejudice.
I mean sure, I understand, at least in theory, that structural racism is a problem, but I don't understand at all how one can say that a member of the Nation of Islam or other groups like that is not racist; that only whites can be racist.

Is this division between whites=racist and nonwhites=not racist maybe a racist notion in itself? And also (since I live, again, in an area which doesn't have many racial issues): what's some examples of structural or systematic racism in the United States, or other western countries?

[Armchair Partisan]

Why is this? Why do we make the distinction between the two – between (racial) discrimination and racism?

Because racial discrimination between individuals is just a case of people being jerks, which is a bad thing, but it's also just the superstructure, so to speak - the symptom of the society's problems and its prevalent attitudes. Racism, the systemic phenomenon behind it, is a very important political problem to be tackled - it is an element of the society's base, it is a powerful driving force of certain political processes. At least, that's a crude way of saying it. I'm sure people will post more lengthy diatribes later to make this difference clear.

Is this division between whites=racist and nonwhites=not racist maybe a racist notion in itself?

That division only exists at the systemic level, for obvious reasons. Sometimes the usage of "racism" by the left as only referring to systemic, not individual manifestations of discrimination can be confusing, and easily exploited by the reaction which can then strawman us by saying we don't think some black supremacist saying whites are inferior is 'racist' (i.e. discriminatory at all, in this context). I think it'd be handier to explicitly refer to "systemic racism" and "individual racism" when necessary, just to make discourse easier. But otherwise, I think it's a perfectly reasonable claim that (systemic) racism is only perpetuated by whites in, say, the USA.

[Sewer Socialist]

To have a materialist conception of race-ism is to analyze racial oppression as a real force, not mere ideas. Ideas play a role, yes, but if these ideas only result from the actual social relationships in the world. In the same way, we oppose capital-ism not as mere ideas about how the world should be, but as the way the world currently manifests itself, and these ideas can only exist via interpretations of what already exists.

We can be critical of, say, a particular black person's thoughts on white people, maybe that white people are inferior, whatever. But we must look at them in context. A particular white person's thoughts that black people are inferior serve as the ideological defense of white supremacy. A black person's positive thoughts towards black supremacy do not uphold a system of black supremacy, at least not at this time because it does not exist.

If there were some sort of black supremacist coup, which turned the tables of racial power around, then yes, then we could feel the same about black supremacy as we do today. But there doesn't seem to be any chance of that, and paranoia about it is only the insecurity of white supremacists - their absurd fears of "white genocide".

Racism is the system we have today of white supremacy, and the ideology of white supremacy must be understood as a part of that system.

[Jacob Cliff]

How does racism and racist ideas get created by the capitalist "base"? What in private ownership of the means of production & self perpetuating value entails the domination of the black peoples by whites? Like, how does capitalism necessitate racism?

[Rafiq]

Racism is the logical conclusion of the underlying cannibalism of capital - racism is nothing more than the elaboration of the vile, survivalist misanthropy of the ruling class in general, and furthermore, the general vicious misanthropy that underlies the social antagonism.

What do I mean by this? Racism is, effectively (and we must situate it in the context of (post) colonialism and imperialism, how capitalism had spread) a projection of the barbarity of the social antagonism upon an other, who is directly excluded from the (national) inter-subjective space. The same barbarity that sustains, mystifies and justifies relations of power and domination, over the "stupid" working classes by their "natural" superiors, is extended to an other, percevied to be outside.

Racism, from colonialism, would not have been possible had the reactionary, anti-egalitarian essentialist notions of what it means to be human not pervaded the underlying social relations of the oppressor nations themselves. The oppression of blacks is therefore an extension of the barbarity of the European class struggle - the blacks here are meant to be a 'special breed' of inferiority, but ultimately from a basis, spectrum, ideological framework whose skeletal structure is wrought from the social antagonism - the "stupidity, laziness, worthlessness" of the blacks (or Arabs, Mexicans, South Asians), is an extension therefore of the "stupidity, laziness, worthlessness" of the 'unwashed' peripheral ordinary masses of people.

As any fool can see, racism among the ordinary masses of people, against 'other races', is a means by which they supplement their own humiliation and domination by capital and the bloodsuckers.

What is the underlying basis of notions of "race and IQ"? ULTIMATELY, the justification of present relations of power EVEN as they pertain to whites as a whole, i.e. that the predicament of the poor whites is a result of an ingrained stupidity. This logic is extended, furthermore, to non-whites, but in a way that also appeases the ignorance, rabid cannibalism of the "native", oppressor nation working class itself, so that the social antagonism of a nation as a whole is then juxtaposed to oppressed nations, in 'unity', i.e. the proletariat can feel like its own bourgeoisie, in consciousness, in how they approach the oppressed nations (and the migrant workers from them). This is the source of nationalism, in fact.

[QueerVanguard]

What do I mean by this?

lay off the zizek, bruv. you start using more and more of his expressions and ideas in every post. I like a lot of your points but if you keep listening to that guy's bs the next thing you know you'll be going on about how "PC" is the biggest thing holding back the left, like that asshole preaches, and so on and so on *sniff*

[Jacob Cliff]

lay off the zizek, bruv. you start using more and more of his expressions and ideas in every post. I like a lot of your points but if you keep listening to that guy's bs the next thing you know you'll be going on about how "PC" is the biggest thing holding back the left, like that asshole preaches, and so on and so on *sniff*

What's wrong with Žižek's criticism of political correctness? *sniffs&wipesnosewithshirt*

[Rudolf]

What's wrong with Žižek's criticism of political correctness? *sniffs&wipesnosewithshirt*

Probably because he takes political correctness at its surface appearances? That is he understands political correctness in the same way as the right does: those darn people not letting others make rape jokes etc. His 'criticism' is identical to the reactionary's. What he fails to realise is that accusations of political correctness serve to control public discourse, specifically to drown out the voices of the marginalised.

[Rafiq]

Probably because he takes political correctness at its surface appearances? That is he understands political correctness in the same way as the right does: those darn people not letting others make rape jokes etc. His 'criticism' is identical to the reactionary's. What he fails to realise is that accusations of political correctness serve to control public discourse, specifically to drown out the voices of the marginalised.

Please stop. Anyone who is actually familiar with Zizek's criticism of political correctness knows that he criticizes it for a purported dishonesty, not because "you don't let people make rape jokes". It seems like you didn't even read/watch Zizek's criticism and just skimmed over the YouTube video's misleading title. Finally, you fail to grasp the extent to which he designates the term to certain phenomnea: political correctness for Zizek represents a much more broad, underlying ritual of 'covering up' phenomena with language. His point is NOT that it curtails "freedom of speech". He has NEVER made such an argument. In fact, Zizek regularly claims that taboos, dogmas, intolerance of speech 'are a sign of progress', and the SPECIFIC example he uses is that of rape - that if someone were to say rape should be legal, they wouldn't even be tolerated, etc. - The conception he has of political correctness is not the same as that of the right, for the right would designate this 'suppression of speech' as politically correct. What you fail to understand is the utter abominable failure of political correctness in carrying an iota of honesty in it - and if you think such silly rituals will ever hold sway among actual ordinary people (even the most oppressed sections of certain national, ethnic, 'racial' groups) you are kidding yourself. The reason the right can get away with blasting political correctness, is becasue ITS CRITICISM IS POPULAR - the masses, outside of university campuses, despise political correctness most likely because they see right past it.

Zizek uses the example of the Pope's suppressed reaction to the Passion of hte Christ:

The Pope's ambiguous reaction to the film is well known: immediately after seeing it, deeply moved, he muttered "It is as it was!" — and this statement was quickly withdrawn by the official Vatican speakers. A glimpse into the Pope's spontaneous reaction was thus quickly replaced by the "official" neutral stance, corrected in order not to hurt anyone. This shift is the best exemplification of what is wrong with liberal tolerance, with the Politically Correct fear that anyone's specific religious sensibility may be hurt: even if it says in the Bible that the Jewish mob demanded the death of Christ, one should not stage this scene directly, but play it down and contextualize it to make it clear that Jews are collectively not to be blamed for the Crucifixion... The problem of such a stance is that, in this way, the aggressive religious passion is merely repressed: it remains there, smoldering beneath the surface and, finding no release, gets stronger and stronger.

Zizek's problem with political correctness is that it does not target the underlying basis of (racism, sexism, etc.), not even in language, so it thereby breeds passive aggressiveness, ingenuity and dishonesty. Political correctness is the bastard of anlgo-philistinism, the underlying stupidity of being 'clear' in one's language, as if the maters it deals with are so simple: the end result is that people bypass the actual insinuation of sexism, racism, obfuscate it even, with politically correct language. What you fail to grasp is that one can be just as vile, racist and reactionary while being 100% politically correct.

The point isn't that people should be allowed to say 'nigger' or use vile language. The point is that innocence does not blush - if someone is predisposed to use that language, that reflects a real, underlying racism and sexism which is not even touched upon by political correctness.

Finally, Zizek's criticism regards the fact that political correctness creates distance between subjects - it 'others' them and he claims it is totally in-genuine. He goes on to mention how even the most politically correct liberal will still not be in proper proximity with the other - they will be uncomfortable by blacks and their music, still think some foreigners smell, and have all sorts of feelings of hostility in proximity with the other they claim to respect.

And Zizek is 100% correct. Political correctness must be substituted for a genuine political language, that derives from real partisan engagement with the struggles in question, not piss poor "keeping your language in check" rituals. Political correctness is disgusting because it attempts to suck passion away from belief - even if ones beliefs are not in the slightest way reactionary, it instills a culture of trying as best as you can not to be engaged in your own beliefs, truly. Furthermore, the coordinates which define which is 'correct' and which is not, is totally ambiguous. The demands of an impassioned proletarian revolution, are these even 'politically correct'? Communists enter territory here - which is not 'politically correct' for society's present political standards. How could one reconcile struggle to the death, collective solidarity, passion in the spirit of self-sacrifice, with meek and ingenuine political correctness? They could not. Political correctness is compromise. Communists do not compromise.

[Rudolf]

Please stop. Anyone who is actually familiar with Zizek's criticism of political correctness knows that he criticizes it for a purported dishonesty, not because "you don't let people make rape jokes". It seems like you didn't even read/watch Zizek's criticism and just skimmed over the YouTube video's misleading title.

I didn't even bother with that. I made an assumption.

Finally, you fail to grasp the extent to which he designates the term to certain phenomnea: political correctness for Zizek represents a much more broad, underlying ritual of 'covering up' phenomena with language. His point is NOT that it curtails "freedom of speech". He has NEVER made such an argument. In fact, Zizek regularly claims that taboos, dogmas, intolerance of speech 'are a sign of progress', and the SPECIFIC example he uses is that of rape - that if someone were to say rape should be legal, they wouldn't even be tolerated, etc. - The conception he has of political correctness is not the same as that of the right, for the right would designate this 'suppression of speech' as politically correct.

So what you're saying is Zizek's political correctness and political correctness as the term's used generally are two different things? Or is it that Zizek appears to lack consistency?

So how does this not happen?

Zizek: Political correctness is bad
sexist: rape should be legal
Zizek: That's a fucked up thing to say!
everyone else: yeah that's fucked up, how dare you?
Zizek: ahh a sign of progress
sexist: PC gone mad!

What you fail to understand is the utter abominable failure of political correctness in carrying an iota of honesty in it - and if you think such silly rituals will ever hold sway among actual ordinary people (even the most oppressed sections of certain national, ethnic, 'racial' groups) you are kidding yourself.

What rituals?

You're right though, i can't understand the failure of political correctness because i only ever really come across political correctness as an accusation and it appears that serves the purpose of denying any legitimacy to the accused.

The reason the right can get away with blasting political correctness, is becasue ITS CRITICISM IS POPULAR - the masses, outside of university campuses, despise political correctness most likely because they see right past it.

You may hope the masses see right past it and that this is the reason why the criticism is so popular but it's not. The criticism is popular for other reasons, more depressing reasons.

The criticism of political correctness cant exist without the accusation of political correctness. There's a fundamental relationship there.

Political correctness is the bastard of anlgo-philistinism, the underlying stupidity of being 'clear' in one's language, as if the maters it deals with are so simple: the end result is that people bypass the actual insinuation of sexism, racism, obfuscate it even, with politically correct language. What you fail to grasp is that one can be just as vile, racist and reactionary while being 100% politically correct.

What is anglo-philistinism btw?

I don't fail to realise anything like that. What you fail to realise is when you point out that language is being used to hide racism or sexism and you cite examples you get accused of being PC! You get accused by both those who try to hide their racism and sexism through language and those that don't. What we have then is the unity of those you identify as PC and non-PC both united in the accusation of political correctness.


Btw, this will probably be better in the political correctness thread.

[Rafiq]

I didn't even bother with that. I made an assumption.

So what you're saying is Zizek's political correctness and political correctness as the term's used generally are two different things? Or is it that Zizek appears to lack consistency?

Because Zizek isn't juxtaposing political correctness with the rawness it attempts to cover up. He is juxtaposing it to an authentic position that has no need of political correctness or the self-regulation of speech at the expense of what you would otherwise be trying to say. Only the guilty blush - innocence is ashamed of nothing.

You're right though, i can't understand the failure of political correctness because i only ever really come across political correctness as an accusation and it appears that serves the purpose of denying any legitimacy to the accused

The broad masses despise political correctness becasue it is inauthentic. It does not actually change their views, it just tells them to go through ingenuine rituals of trying to cover those views up.

You may hope the masses see right past it and that this is the reason why the criticism is so popular but it's not. The criticism is popular for other reasons, more depressing reasons.

It's complex for a few reasons. The masses despise it because they see right past it, but not because they are juxtaposing it with some authentic position. They see the petty bourgeoisie rail against it and identify with this critique. So accentuating the class difference in the masses opposition to political correctness means opting for Zizek's position: Actually addressing and targeting the deep-rooted 'prejudice' (or whatever you want) that political correctness covers up honestly and openly in a way that relates to their ignorance.

Political correctness rose in popularity by the media as a means of counter-counterculture, as many should know. Think of it this way: If you want to fart at a dinner table, will you? No, you'll hold in the fart. For Zizek political correctness is holding in the fart. The task of Communists is to have no fart in the first place. Political correctness was conceived out of an inabilyt to actually understand the phenomena it attempts to 'cover up', i.e. as just vestigial 'prejudices' that we need to ritualistically get out of the habit of doing.

hence why I quoted Zizek:

The problem of such a stance is that, in this way, the aggressive religious passion [or any deep seated belief] is merely repressed: it remains there, smoldering beneath the surface and, finding no release, gets stronger and stronger.

The criticism of political correctness cant exist without the accusation of political correctness. There's a fundamental relationship there.

What we need is a new anti politically correct discourse that can distinguish itself from the traditional, cliche'd attacks on political correctness. That's what we need. If we can do this, then the 'antipolitical correctness' of the petty bourgeoisie will be exposed and unpopular. We must accentuate WHY the broad masses despise political correctness, against WHY the reactionary vultures who are leading them do.

I don't fail to realise anything like that. What you fail to realise is when you point out that language is being used to hide racism or sexism and you cite examples you get accused of being PC! You get accused by both those who try to hide their racism and sexism through language and those that don't. What we have then is the unity of those you identify as PC and non-PC both united in the accusation of political correctness.

You're right. There are many other examples of this 'paradox' in relation to the proletariat's reactionary tendencies. My point? It does not have to be this way. We can distinguish ourselves from the cliche'd "PC" people I am talking about.

[Jacob Cliff]

Because Zizek isn't juxtaposing political correctness with the rawness it attempts to cover up. He is juxtaposing it to an authentic position that has no need of political correctness or the self-regulation of speech at the expense of what you would otherwise be trying to say. Only the guilty blush - innocence is ashamed of nothing.



The broad masses despise political correctness becasue it is inauthentic. It does not actually change their views, it just tells them to go through ingenuine rituals of trying to cover those views up.



It's complex for a few reasons. The masses despise it because they see right past it, but not because they are juxtaposing it with some authentic position. They see the petty bourgeoisie rail against it and identify with this critique. So accentuating the class difference in the masses opposition to political correctness means opting for Zizek's position: Actually addressing and targeting the deep-rooted 'prejudice' (or whatever you want) that political correctness covers up honestly and openly in a way that relates to their ignorance.

Political correctness rose in popularity by the media as a means of counter-counterculture, as many should know. Think of it this way: If you want to fart at a dinner table, will you? No, you'll hold in the fart. For Zizek political correctness is holding in the fart. The task of Communists is to have no fart in the first place. Political correctness was conceived out of an inabilyt to actually understand the phenomena it attempts to 'cover up', i.e. as just vestigial 'prejudices' that we need to ritualistically get out of the habit of doing.

hence why I quoted Zizek:





What we need is a new anti politically correct discourse that can distinguish itself from the traditional, cliche'd attacks on political correctness. That's what we need. If we can do this, then the 'antipolitical correctness' of the petty bourgeoisie will be exposed and unpopular. We must accentuate WHY the broad masses despise political correctness, against WHY the reactionary vultures who are leading them do.



You're right. There are many other examples of this 'paradox' in relation to the proletariat's reactionary tendencies. My point? It does not have to be this way. We can distinguish ourselves from the cliche'd "PC" people I am talking about.

Yes, but the problem is the question is concretely HOW we will have anti-PC discourse in a different tradition than mainstream anti-political correctness. It's easy enough to say we need to criticize it while striking at the roots, but we need to determine what EXACTLY the roots are and how we'll strike them.

[Rafiq]

Yes, but the problem is the question is concretely HOW we will have anti-PC discourse in a different tradition than mainstream anti-political correctness. It's easy enough to say we need to criticize it while striking at the roots, but we need to determine what EXACTLY the roots are and how we'll strike them.

Well this is precisely what Zizek deals with. The question is simple: Why are working people dissatisfied with political correctness, as opposed to the petty bourgeoisie (and the petty bourgeois ideologues)?

Figuring out why this is, you can do by actual firsthand experience with working people - or working class culture (which is expressed, evidently, on social media platforms like facebook with those 'share if you agree' etc.) while equipped with necessary theoretical knowledge.

[Jacob Cliff]

Taking this thread in a whole other direction: what are some examples of institutional racism in the United States or the West today? When asked where the racism is, it seems many avoid the question altogether.

[Rafiq]

Racism is a complex phenomena. I might ask you: Where do you imagine there is not racism? Your question appears to insinuate the question - "what is racism?" rather than where such racism is. We are a 'politically correct' society, so generally it is against public sensitivities to be outwardly racist.

Of course, such a question is bizarre insofar as we recognize the sheer disparities of life between blacks and whites, the overly represented black prison population, victimization at the hands of police brutality, and the list really goes on. You can't condense this phenomena through such outwardly examples. Why? Because racism is a word, it should not be made into an abstraction. Racism, like sexism, is not some positive phenomena that interjects or 'taints' things in such a way, it is intrinsically part of a social totality that which no one can be outside of. There are no degrees that which something is racist, for example, it is either racist or it is not, and racism underlies the basis of the present order. Racism encapsulates the misanthropic spectrum that which the degradation of the proletariat is mystified and legitimized.

Perhaps I just misunderstand your question.

[Jacob Cliff]

Racism is a complex phenomena. I might ask you: Where do you imagine there is not racism? Your question appears to insinuate the question - "what is racism?" rather than where such racism is. We are a 'politically correct' society, so generally it is against public sensitivities to be outwardly racist.

Of course, such a question is bizarre insofar as we recognize the sheer disparities of life between blacks and whites, the overly represented black prison population, victimization at the hands of police brutality, and the list really goes on. You can't condense this phenomena through such outwardly examples. Why? Because racism is a word, it should not be made into an abstraction. Racism, like sexism, is not some positive phenomena that interjects or 'taints' things in such a way, it is intrinsically part of a social totality that which no one can be outside of. There are no degrees that which something is racist, for example, it is either racist or it is not, and racism underlies the basis of the present order. Racism encapsulates the misanthropic spectrum that which the degradation of the proletariat is mystified and legitimized.

Perhaps I just misunderstand your question.

Sure, I can understand (to an extent) that racism exists in the wider totality of capitalist society – but I mean what specific, concrete examples of institutionalized racism are there? I don't mean this in a condescending way – it's just literally, I'm not seeing where the official barriers for black people are. Sure, we have PC here – and our sensitivities are geared largely to browbeat racists when they come out. Sure, this PC dishonest culture signifies there is something terribly wrong with our society (and that racial prejudice is only suppressed, not eliminated) – but we need to be able to look at specific institutions that engender racism, we need to look at actual institutions that hinder blacks or whatever from being successful or "on par" with whites. My question's more of a "where is the concrete institutions for racism," not so much how racism affects society.

[Rafiq]

"Formally" there is no racism. The civil rights act was passed in 1964. Blacks, formally, are allowed to legally do anything whites are.

In practical terms, is it even necessary that I mention the racism implicit in the 'justice' system? Among several other impediments American blacks face that many liberals have gone over? We should expect these are cliche's by now.

[Jacob Cliff]

In practical terms, is it even necessary that I mention the racism implicit in the 'justice' system? Among several other impediments American blacks face that many liberals have gone over? We should expect these are cliche's by now.

Yes, actually it is – that's specifically the things I'm looking for. The rehashed liberal concerns over race issues I see torn to shreds by YouTube commentators and right wing pundits daily makes me very skeptical when many claims of racism are made – even if the people "debunking this" are idiots. I mean, is it maybe a poverty issue that people associate with race because blacks are disproportionally poorer than whites? I don't know how they are at a legal disadvantage in the justice system. That's what I'm asking – because most of the arguments on both sides are completely partisan and makes me very concerned with the real truth of the matter. The reaction against, say, the BLM movement are disgusting, vile humans with clearly racist motives (and any viewer can see that) – but equally horrible are those on the other side of the spectrum who seem like nothing but opportunists trying to find new illegitimate ways to protest/incite race issues.

[Rafiq]

Yes, actually it is – that's specifically the things I'm looking for. The rehashed liberal concerns over race issues I see torn to shreds by YouTube commentators and right wing pundits daily makes me very skeptical when many claims of racism are made

No, you haven't seen those torn to shreds, because it is not a matter of debate. What you have done, is uncritically accept arguments that are unsurprisingly generally racist themselves. For example? The notion that blacks are genetically predisposed to their predicament. How is this not tautologically the same racism which reproduces it in the first place? Blacks are overly represented in the prisons. They are, proportional to their population, overly represented as victims of police brutality and police homicides. And no, blacks aren't simply poorer. They are literally the peripheral precariat of our epoch, they are dispossessed, and demographically barred from decent paying jobs. The emergence of black ghettos themselves, were the product of a racist housing program. Government spending on public infrastructure in areas that are predominantly black, is infinitely less than those that are white. Schooling and public services are undoubtedly inferior. In addition, numerous studies regarding 'racial bias' have been conducted which confirm the obvious about peoples general predispositions toward blacks.

You ask how there is a legal disadvantage for blacks. Well, blacks just on average 'happen' to be more predisposed to crime, in your mind? Because they ARE overreprestned in our prisons, they ARE more likely to face legal punishments for THE SAME crimes as whites. This is not a controversial fact - it is a truism. How is there a legal disadvantage for blacks? How could you even ask this?

And racism is much more complex then this, as I have outlined, because it refers to the general ruling ideological conception of class.

But you should present the comments so we can get a better understanding of what has you so convinced of the absence of racism. There is no debating about the fact that racism is visible. Let me ask you, when people are talking about 'lazy welfare bums', who are they talking about? And furthermore, who do voters who buy into that, what image pops up in their head? Honestly just stop. You are going to tell me that the majority of society does not have tacit reservations about blacks, and so on? And from what you say, it seems like you haven't met many blacks either. The fact is that you don't even need research - firsthand experience alone makes it conventional wisdom that blacks in the US have it rougher in virtually every circumstances. For example? Assuming you're white, how often do you think about your race? Not very often. You think of yourself as a person. People who are not white must think of themselves as persons, plus their specific race.

And I haven't even gone into the revival of 'scientific racism' in many scientific fields.

because most of the arguments on both sides are completely partisan and makes me very concerned with the real truth of the matter

Partisanship and truth not only do not exclude each other, they are conditions of each other. There is no 'middle road'. What the hell are you talking about, 'real truth'? What does that mean? The 'real truth' both are over-looking? You make a pretense to this 'real-truth' and guess what, YOU ARE JUST AS PARTISAN as they are. One iether aapproaches the matter scientifically, or they do not. And to approach matters scientifically, and in a partisan way is one and the same - for example, to approach the natural world scientifically would have ben a partisan position centuries ago. That is because truth is PRACTICAL, it is not some 'special knowledge' that 'humans' overlook, truth is nothing more than the practical relationship between humans and the world around them. Those practically inclined to mystify social phenomena, for the sake of reproducing it, are taking a partisan position, and those practically inclined to have knowledge of social phenomena, take the partisan position of insinuating that they can change it.

[Rafiq]

But even with a keen eye, one can locate racism specifically in the necessity of whites to assert dominance over blacks in very complex ways. The insecurities felt by whites, for example, regarding 'black guys with white women' are an example of this. Every white person is willing to accept not being discriminatory, but the notion of blacks meeting them eye to eye threatens them.

I mean, one literally sees this at firsthand experience. I can give a detailed outline of this if you provide me any single attack on black lives matter in a thorough manner. Any kind will do.